Quantcast
When is Violence Justified? - Page 8 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
AngryofTuebrook

When is Violence Justified?

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

Of course he was left wing, radically so. Are you suggesting he was secretly right wing?

You don’t know that at all. You are merely assuming it is so to fit your point.

 

Hitler was also an animal loving vegetarian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

You don’t know that at all. You are merely assuming it is so to fit your point.

 

Hitler was also an animal loving vegetarian. 

Bloody left wing cunt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Captain Turdseye said:

 

You tell me. Did that hurt?

The most obvious response from the most predictable poster on the site? It was merely a scratch. 

 

I genuinely knew someone would do that and the first person that came to mind was you. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

"It's actually the opposite of violence"

 

Seriously? It's a criminal offence. You are forcibly throwing an object at a person without provocation. 

 

Seriously.

It's all about the context and what you are actually throwing. If you are spat at in the street, it's nasty. If you are spat at a punk gig, it's high praise for your band

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

You don’t know that at all. You are merely assuming it is so to fit your point.

 

Hitler was also an animal loving vegetarian. 

I'm not assuming anything. He killed a right wing populist and then said he did it to protect the muslims from persecution. He said Fortuyn was targeting the weak parts of society to score points and was scapegoating muslims. He saw himself as the good guy saving the Dutch people. You are trying to make out he was only angry because of the mink farming. Not true. He was a left wing killer of a right wing politician. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

Seriously.

It's all about the context and what you are actually throwing. If you are spat at in the street, it's nasty. If you are spat at a punk gig, it's high praise for your band

 

So being milkshaked is a sign of respect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

The most obvious response from the most predictable poster on the site? It was merely a scratch. 

 

I genuinely knew someone would do that and the first person that came to mind was you. 

 

bO5yfUQ.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

So being milkshaked is a sign of respect?

No, it's a statement of strong disagreement stopping short of actual violence by deliberately creating a comedic effect whilst making sure no physical pain and harm will be inflicted. 
 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Boss said:

I'm not assuming anything. He killed a right wing populist and then said he did it to protect the muslims from persecution. He said Fortuyn was targeting the weak parts of society to score points and was scapegoating muslims. He saw himself as the good guy saving the Dutch people. You are trying to make out he was only angry because of the mink farming. Not true. He was a left wing killer of a right wing politician. 

I remember it well. That was all later claims in court after the fame went to his unbalanced head.

 

Here is the initial Guardian report that Van der Graaf generated:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/may/07/thefarright.uk3

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

"It's actually the opposite of violence"

 

Seriously? It's a criminal offence. You are forcibly throwing an object at a person without provocation. 

I'd say the 'without provocation' part versus a drenching from milk shake could be argued against given his views against certain people within society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

I remember it well. That was all later claims in court after the fame went to his unbalanced head.

 

Here is the initial Guardian report that Van der Graaf generated:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/may/07/thefarright.uk3

 

There was a ban relating to the killer talking to the media. The only time he was allowed to speak about his actions was during the trial. I'd say his testimony is much more credible than a news outlet from another country, reporting on the murder as it broke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

I mean I don’t think anyone, apart from maybe rico and NV, would object that if Hitler had been in mid exhorting rant and some ordinary German citizen had lobbed an egg at him, that would have been ok.

I think there's a bit of a difference between a nobody with no power, no decision making ability, no way of getting his ideas implemented, and Adolf Hitler who started wars, murdered 6,000,000 Jews, is responsible for some of the most horrible crimes in history. Both my Grandfathers fought against Hitler's forces in the war, and I think they did it because they liked freedom. My issue isn't standing up to fascism, it's throwing milkshakes at people you don't like because it's tactically and strategically ignorant and foolish. It gives those people much more coverage, makes those throwing it look like cunts - along with the ideas that they espouse - and gives the cunts ammunition to say 'see what they leftists are like'. It's pretty stupid. The left is pretty shit, to be honest. Have a giggle, throw a milkshake, watch the Brexit party win. 

 

Good job.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SasaS said:

 

Seriously.

It's all about the context and what you are actually throwing. If you are spat at in the street, it's nasty. If you are spat at a punk gig, it's high praise for your band

Similarly, it's not unheard of for people to have food fights in the name of japes and high jinks.

 

Gunfights, less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Sooooo....

 

 

To answer the OP -- it appears the answer is unequivocally yes if it is someone you do not like/agree with.

 

#NotRocketScience 

That's what I was hoping to get past. If you have some sort of moral/philosophical framework about when violence is justifiable, you shouldn't be bound to "it's only OK when my team do it".

 

Mind you, I was also hoping to avoid the distraction of non-violent use of dairy products. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I think there's a bit of a difference between a nobody with no power, no decision making ability, no way of getting his ideas implemented, and Adolf Hitler who started wars, murdered 6,000,000 Jews, is responsible for some of the most horrible crimes in history. Both my Grandfathers fought against Hitler's forces in the war, and I think they did it because they liked freedom. My issue isn't standing up to fascism, it's throwing milkshakes at people you don't like because it's tactically and strategically ignorant and foolish. It gives those people much more coverage, makes those throwing it look like cunts - along with the ideas that they espouse - and gives the cunts ammunition to say 'see what they leftists are like'. It's pretty stupid. The left is pretty shit, to be honest. Have a giggle, throw a milkshake, watch the Brexit party win. 

 

Good job.

 

Exactly. It's so obviously counter productive as well. Punching a Nazi in the face is not going to make them stop and think about their beliefs. You never hear an ex-Nazi going "yeah, he just cold socked me and when I came to, all my teeth were missing, but I was so thankful to that fella for showing me the error of my ways."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Sooooo....

 

 

To answer the OP -- it appears the answer is unequivocally yes if it is someone you do not like/agree with.

 

#NotRocketScience 

 

No, punching people while they are speaking and not even looking at you or when they are talking to you and clearly not expecting to be punched in the face is for me not justified, however much you may disagree with them. Also, after been egged or milkshaked you are entitled to have a swing at the perpetrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Boss said:

Isn't the point obvious?

 

"I’m not going to lose any sleep about some fella pouring a milkshake on him"

 

"Throwing milkshake or egging someone is not violence"

 

"This is why I've got no qualms about Yaxley-Lennon or the rapey twat getting milky"

 

"You mean have a cold drink thrown on them? It's not violence, really, is it?"

 

"I don't fucking care. It's a milkshake."

Is there a connection between pouring milkshake on someone and murdering people? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SasaS said:

 

No, punching people while they are speaking and not even looking at you or when they are talking to you and clearly not expecting to be punched in the face is for me not justified, however much you may disagree with them. Also, after been egged or milkshaked you are entitled to have a swing at the perpetrator.

Take it to the FF:

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boss said:

 

At least moof is honest about condoning violence against political enemies. You try and pretend otherwise.

Aren’t fascists your enemies as well? I mean, what the fuck are we talking about here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×